People with BSing ability needed. 25ksp up for grabs.

Alright, heres the story. I have to write a 500 word summary for each of these three sources, I just don't think I could bull$#@! that much. Its just a summary, so no further information is needed to get it done. Also the subject which I am writing about is why "Chimpanzees should be classified in the same group as humans", these sources are for supporting it.

I say that chimps need to be classed as humans, because it was them that give us the survival skills and how to hunt and kill. Also they taught us to communicate, over time we developed the ability to use things to build wee nest type things to live in and keep are young ones safe

They taught us how to feed are young and how to protect them, how to bring them up

Over time we have expanded this thinking and that is thanks to are distant relatives and yet they still evolving and will always evolve. So chimpanzees should be classed as humans

Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life.

Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species.

Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps and humans diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as $#@! troglodytes.

The move would make chimps full members of our genus $#@!, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species.

"Moving chimps into the human genus might help us to realize our very great likeness, and therefore treasure more and treat humanely our closest relative," he said.

Knowing Me, Knowing You The term genus describes a very closely related group of similar species, thought to have diverged from one another relatively recently, and is the first grouping above the species level.

Common chimpanzees and bonobos have until now been classified into their own genus, Pan.

Historical classification schemes, based on physical similarities such as bones, argued that chimps and gorillas were each other's closest relatives, and that both were closely related to orangutans to the exclusion of humans.

With the advent of molecular techniques to compare similarities in our DNA starting in the 1960s, most experts have come to accept the fact that humans and chimps are most closely related.

Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical.

Derek E. Wildman, Goodman, and other co-authors at Wayne State argue in their new study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that given the evidence, it's somewhat surprising that humans and chimps are still classified into different genera.

Other mammalian genera often contain groups of species that diverged much earlier than chimps and humans did, said Goodman.

"To be consistent, we need to revise our definition of the human branch of the tree of life," he said.

Historically Flawed Goodman and colleagues used computer methods to analyze the amount of similarity between 97 important human and chimp genes and as many of the same gene sequences as are currently available for less-studied gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys.

The results suggested that within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity.

Using the DNA data, the researchers argue that humans and chimp lineages evolutionarily diverged from one another between five and six million years ago.

Many other genera more distant to people, some squirrels for example, include groups of species that have diverged from one another far earlier-many between 7 to 11 million years ago.

Species groupings should be equivalent between different groups of animals, said Goodman.

"Historically, the philosophy behind how we group organisms was flawed," said Goodman.

Starting with Aristotle in ancient Greece, species have been grouped according to their "Degree of perfection," with man as the pinnacle.

This "Anthropocentric," or human-centered, view led to "Exaggeration of the differences between humans and their relatives," he said, noting that his study gives "An objective view of man's place in the kingdom of life." Confusion and Opposition "This is an attempt to pull the classification of humans in line with other speciesand is fundamentally a good idea if you want to accurately reflect the evolutionary differences between organisms," said Cristophe Soligo of the Human Origins research group at The Natural History Museum in London, England.

Humans have been the "Odd-one out" in terms of mammalian classification, he said.

"The closer you get to humans the more contentious the issues become." Reclassifying chimps would also have "Political implications," challenging our long-held view of the boundary between humans and other animals, he said.

Many recent studies "Are contributing to blurring the boundaries between our species", said Soligo.

"The argument is whether genetic relatedness is the only thing you should take into account," said anthropologist Bernard Wood at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "A genus should also be a group of very similar species, that share attributes such as behavior and ," he said.

Fossil human-like species are currently divided into at least three genera.

Grouping them all in the genus $#@! could be very confusing, Wood said.

Classification schemes "Should be the signposts for differences between organisms," said Wood.

"The problem is, if you call the chimp $#@! troglodytes, you deny yourself that tool to help guide you through the tree of life."

PSN: xThAkIdJxYx Cod Psn:xxAkiRo‎"It's not important to have a long life, the important thing is to have a happy life with your beloved ones"

I am not writing the summaries but I can offer some advice about how to evaluate sources. 500 words is not much, and after you investigate each of the sources' provenance you will be half way through the word limit.

For example: who wrote it, what is the website, what is the audience of the website, what is the purpose of the website, what is its level of bias, what is its reputation, etc. The reason to believe website, for example, is for the purpose of integrating science into faith, meaning the website is likely to exclude theories that contradict the Bible, and/or manipulate the information in a way that appears to remove the rift between science and faith. The national geographic, however, is a scientific institution that is unburdened by religious dogma.

After discussing these elements, the remainder of the words can be used to say 'this website claims this'.

I am not writing the summaries but I can offer some advice about how to evaluate sources. 500 words is not much, and after you investigate each of the sources' provenance you will be half way through the word limit.

For example: who wrote it, what is the website, what is the audience of the website, what is the purpose of the website, what is its level of bias, what is its reputation, etc. The reason to believe website, for example, is for the purpose of integrating science into faith, meaning the website is likely to exclude theories that contradict the Bible, and/or manipulate the information in a way that appears to remove the rift between science and faith. The national geographic, however, is a scientific institution that is unburdened by religious dogma.

After discussing these elements, the remainder of the words can be used to say 'this website claims this'.

Hope this helps, but if you knew all of this already, oh well.

That is very helpful Valefor, putting the contextual questions into such organization would make it easier to bash out the information to the extent I need.

I'll still leave this open, but if no-one else does it, this might be very helpful.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

i managed to bump the word count from 385 to 413....not that big a bump but at least its closer to 500 now

Morris Goodman, an evolutionary biologist from Wayne State University, pioneered a scientific study that, at its core, seeks to assert chimpanzee’s similarities with humankind by examination of the formers genus. The study, which looked at 97 genes that collectively consisted of 90,000 base pairs, discovered a 99.4% sequence identity. The study, one of the most extensive studies of human-chimp gene-to-gene comparisons yet made, led Goodman to the conclusion that, genetically speaking, chimpanzees and humans belong in the same genus – $#@!.

To the scientific illiterate 99.4% might sound convincing, but the wider scientific community is unlikely to latch onto the studies discoveries, much less agree with its conclusion. Genetic comparisons form merely a fraction of the differences that serve as the basis for their assignments to separate genera. Humans and chimpanzees have obvious physiological, behavioural and cultural differences, and most importantly don’t share similar anatomical structures.

In addition to these significant differences, the study provided by Professor Goodman’s comparisons is questionable. The study method contains a bias which would be guaranteed to derive the results the study seeks. At best a study which compared the entire genome of both humans and chimpanzees would yield better results as it would account for all types of genetic differences. Mr Goodman’s Study however, focused on a single type of genetic difference known as substitution. As such the study compares only regions of human and chimpanzee genomes already known to be identical.

Though analyses of whole-genome structures are not yet possible, scientists are close, with preliminary results indicating humans and chimpanzees are not so genetically similar, despite the numbers provided by the study. For example, one recent study which looked at five regions of the chimpanzee genome, using 780,000 base pairs, found only 95% sequence similarity when compared to the corresponding regions of the human genome. “Indels” (insertions/deletions) were considered as well as the solitary “substitutions” method used by the Goodman study. Another study, using 1,870,955 base pairs, found only 86.7% genetic similarity when human and chimpanzee segments of DNA were laid side by side. This study included indels in its analysis of both the DNA samples.

Scientists are still lacking a clear understanding of the genetic differences and similarities between humans and chimpanzees. However, as comparisons move to larger regions of the genome from the somewhat contrived single genes in the Goodman study, researchers are exposing substantial distinctions. Humans and Chimpanzees aren’t as genetically similar as was once thought. Goodman’s study therefore would be considered as Ill-conceived.

only took about 10 mins o.O

is this the kind of stuff you're looking for or were we supposed to super condense it (kinda hard as it didn't reach 500 to begin with)

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.